Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.03
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.247 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Whenever an application for a permit to make beneficial use of public waters is approved relating to a stream or other water body for which minimum flows or levels have been adopted and are in effect at the time of approval, the permit shall be conditioned to: (a) Protect the levels or flows; or (b) require water resource mitigation of impacts to instream flows and closed surface water bodies for water resource mitigation pilot projects authorized under RCW 90.94.090.
(2) No agency may establish minimum flows and levels or similar water flow or level restrictions for any stream or lake of the state other than the department of ecology whose authority to establish is exclusive, as provided in chapter 90.03 RCW and RCW 90.22.010 and 90.54.040. The provisions of other statutes, including but not limited to chapter 43.21C RCW, may not be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with this section. In establishing such minimum flows, levels, or similar restrictions, the department shall, during all stages of development by the department of ecology of minimum flow proposals, consult with, and carefully consider the recommendations of, the department of fish and wildlife, the department of commerce, the department of agriculture, and representatives of the affected Indian tribes. Nothing herein shall preclude the department of fish and wildlife, the department of commerce, or the department of agriculture from presenting its views on minimum flow needs at any public hearing or to any person or agency, and the department of fish and wildlife, the department of commerce, and the department of agriculture are each empowered to participate in proceedings of the federal energy regulatory commission and other agencies to present its views on minimum flow needs.
[ 2018 c 1 s 302; 2003 c 39 s 48; 1996 c 186 s 523; 1994 c 264 s 82. Prior: 1987 c 506 s 95; 1987 c 505 s 81; 1980 c 87 s 46; 1979 ex.s. c 166 s 1.]

Notes:

Intent—2018 c 1: See note following RCW 90.94.010.
Effective date—2018 c 1: See RCW 90.94.900.
Findings—Intent—Part headings not law—Effective date—1996 c 186: See notes following RCW 43.330.904.
Legislative findings and intent—1987 c 506: See note following RCW 77.04.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “ANALYSIS ¶12 The Tribe contends that the Amended Rule is invalid because it exceeds statutory authority, arguing that *580 the rule conflicts with several provisions in the water code that prohibit withdrawal of water when the withdrawal would impair minimum flows set by rule,…”
Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “247 requires that "[w]henever an application for a permit to make beneficial use of public waters is approved relating to a stream or other water body for which minimum flows or levels have been adopted and are in effect at the time of approval, the permit shall be conditioned…”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “It is for this reason that RCW 90.03.247 requires that “[w]henever an applica *819 tion for a permit to make beneficial use of public waters is approved relating to a stream or other water body for which minimum flows or levels have been adopted and are iri effect at the time of…”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “Included in this mandate is the authority to establish minimum water flows and water levels (RCW 90.03.247 and RCW 90.22.010), base flows, and WRIAs.”
Ctr. for Env't Law & Policy v. Dep't of Ecology, 196 Wash. App. 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “247 (“Whenever an application for a permit to make beneficial use of public waters is approved relating to a stream or other water body for which minimum flows or levels have been adopted and are in effect at the time of approval, the permit shall be conditioned to protect the…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “040 (authority to adopt rules related to future allocation decisions to implement intent of Water Resources Act of 1971); RCW 90.03.247 (Ecology with authority to set minimum flows, levels, or restrictions).”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “040 (authority to adopt rules related to future allocation decisions to implement intent of Water Resources Act of 1971); RCW 90.03.247 (Ecology with authority to set minimum flows, levels, or restrictions).”
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “They also argue because RCW 90.03.247 requires permits to be conditioned to protect instream flow rights, permit-exempt wells are not subject to such rights.”
Magdalena T. Bassett v. Washington State Dep't Of Ecology, 438 P.3d 563 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, they argue that DOE’s closure of the basin based on its affirmative findings that water is unavailable exceeded its statutory authority. We disagree. DOE has authority to close streams to further appropriation.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 1256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 90.03.247; RCW 90.22.010. WAC 173-500-040.”
Hubbard v. Dep't of Ecology, 936 P.2d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 90.03.247. See, e.g., WAC 173-549-020(4).”
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. State Of Washington, 444 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “Beecher later qualified this recommendation and emphasized that the 6 RCW 90.03.247 has been amended since the events of this case transpired.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.247(1) — 2 cases
Magdalena T. Bassett v. Washington State Dep't Of Ecology, 438 P.3d 563 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Accordingly, they argue that DOE’s closure of the basin based on its affirmative findings that water is unavailable exceeded its statutory authority. We disagree. DOE has authority to close streams to further appropriation.”
Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.247(2) — 2 cases
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. State Of Washington, 444 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Beecher later qualified this recommendation and emphasized that the 6 RCW 90.03.247 has been amended since the events of this case transpired.”
Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.